Race- and religion-based politics slows Asia’s progress

How fitting it would be if the latest return visit to Asia by America’s top diplomat, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, on behalf of America’s first African-American president, also helped to push the region, including China, to move beyond stereotypes. This is critical if Asia is to move forward toward greater peace and prosperity.

Whether it’s China with its large Uighur and Tibetan populations or Myanmar, aka Burma, with more than 130 distinct ethnic groups, Asia is facing growing protests and unrest among minority communities who feel poorly served by national government policies and attitudes.

Use of ethnicity, race or religion to divide or define one’s own citizens should have no place in the Asia of today, whether in giant India under newly elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi or the smallest Pacific island nation.

Each of Kerry’s destinations — scheduled to include Myanmar, Australia and the Solomon Islands — has had its share of race-based controversy, religious antipathy or identity-based politics.

In Australia, debate continues over the government’s contentious policy of stopping would-be asylum seekers at sea and then housing, some might say detaining, them at “processing facilities” on the remote island of Nauru or on Papua New Guinea.

The Solomon Islands remains plagued by tensions stemming in part from polarized “Malaitan” and “Guadalcanal” identities.

And, of course, there is Myanmar, where persecution of a Muslim minority, who call themselves the Rohingya — a term and identity unrecognized by the government — continues. Tensions remain high also between the nominally civilian and predominantly ethnic Bamar government and the Shan, Kachin, and Karen peoples, among others, who long for greater freedom and autonomy.

Strikingly Kerry also is the first in a long while of what had traditionally been the face and stereotype of America’s top diplomat — that of a distinguished, white male statesman. In the nearly two decades prior, America’s secretaries of state had included a white woman (Clinton), two African-Americans (Rice and Powell) and a Jewish-American woman (Albright), dating back to January 1997. One can only imagine an ethic Tibetan serving as China’s minister of foreign affairs or a Muslim from Rakhine state becoming Myanmar’s next top diplomat.

Whether speaking of the Rohingya Muslim minority in Burma or of religious minorities being attacked by the Islamic State in Iraq, Kerry should make clear that America’s values remain clear.

A rebalanced pivot to Asia includes support for efforts not just to drive business growth but also to call out and end government actions in Asia and the Pacific that are defined by the dividing politics of race, religion and ethnicity.

I am reminded of the derogatory words coming from China last February as U.S. Ambassador Gary Locke, the first Chinese-American to serve as the top U.S. envoy to China, prepared to depart that country. At that time, a major Chinese government news service issued an opinion piece, “Farewell, Gary Locke,” calling the third-generation descendant of Chinese immigrants a “banana.”

That term is used by some Chinese to describe Asians who identify too closely with supposedly “Western values” (such as freedom of speech and religion and “human rights”) despite their skin color. In essence, “yellow on the outside, white on the inside.” (I should know — having served as the U.S.’ fourth ambassador of Chinese heritage, and pressed for reforms at the Asian Development Bank, I have been called one too.)

“When a banana sits our for long, its yellow peel will always rot, not only revealing its white core but also turning into the stomach-churning color of black,” read the China News Service commentary apparently modeled after Mao Zedong’s 1949 piece, “Farewell, Leighton Stewart,” written of the departure of the last U.S. ambassador to the Nationalist Chinese government then in Nanjing.

Respect for culture and heritage, it seems, was not enough for the state-run news service. With such an attitude, it is understandable if some Tibetans, Uighurs or any of China’s other “recognized minorities” or members of “unrecognized religions” feel uncomfortable and never fully Chinese citizens. By virtue of who they are, they may be viewed by authorities and fellow citizens as suspicious.

The sentiments voiced in the anti-Locke editorial also do little to help the millions of ethnic Chinese around the world who are proudly citizens of Indonesia, Malaysia, Kenya, Brazil or elsewhere. To the contrary, it may well reinforce suspicions and a lack of trust of ethnic Chinese amidst China’s rise.

It remains time for Asia to move beyond a nationalism narrowly defined by ethnicity, religion or any of the many other ways to divide a people and a continent. Should such narrow nationalism continue, Asia may well face a future that harkens more back to the wars and divisions of the last century — and to the hit U.S. television series and “Game of Thrones” novels of contending kingdoms — than one of extended peace and prosperity. That’s sad for all of us.

One lesson from America’s own struggles with race and racism is that sustained business and economic growth should leverage every individual’s abilities — to succeed and to fail — regardless of background, ethnicity, race or religion. That’s clearly a battle still being fought in America, and certainly remains the case in many parts of Asia, given recent headlines from Burma and elsewhere.

Sectarianism has now joined what I call the “little bric” of bureaucracy, regulation, interventionism and corruption that too often hold make economic progress and development.

The U.S. secretary of state can do his part to bring attention also to this growing constraint to growth in Asia and the Pacific, but so can every citizen.

Curtis S. Chin, a former U.S. ambassador to the Asian Development Bank under Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, is managing director of advisory firm RiverPeak Group, LLC. Twitter: @CurtisSChin

There are some fundamental contradictions being glossed over here, I believe,

It is untenable to advocate for the recognition of minority rights on the basis of religious identity-based politics while denying the same to the majority, on the one hand, and on the other hand, in the case of the modern state, China is supposed to be establishing a rational order, while limiting the scope of the irrational–including religious beliefs, to some extent. That is the way they characterize the situation in Tibet, at any rate, as modernity versus feudalism.

You can’t tell the Buddhists in Myanmar that they have to cede anything to the Musllims because they have minority rights, because the logic of “universal rights” applies to all. Accordingly, it is the context for promoting the understanding of why such rights are proper that must be cultivated until mutual intelligibility is achieved..

It is important to preserve human cultural diversity while at the same time steering the course of social development toward the path of modernity, participatory government, and human rights, but those are two parallels that need to be negotiated in tandem, not one imposed unilaterally in a dogmatic manner at the expense of the other.

Roppi

Sorry Zero Zero – but that wasn’t my out take of the article at all.
I’m NOT disagreeing with much of what you say especially the first part of your last paragraph..
But the author – an ex US Ambassador to Asian Development Bank – I believe was not suggesting imposing a unilateral dogma on anyone…
The minorities do not have the same political or social benefits to the majorities – in whatever Asian country you choose.. I think the point is: this is holding back the economic and social cohesion in those countries..
Unfortunately, Mr. Chin did not offer any workable solutions..